alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12908]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9151]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``The Holocaust'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``The Holocaust,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement 
with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the 
exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the United States 
Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, District of Columbia, from on or 
about July 15, 2015, until on or about May 20, 2018, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and 
Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of 
State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email: section2459@state.gov). The 
mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: May 19, 2015.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-12908 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
# C_2021252EN.01003702.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/37

---

Order of the General Court of 5 May 2021 — Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-179/18) (1)

(2021/C 252/56)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---
<PAGE>




Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form, 10-Q/A-2 (the "Report") of
Amaru, Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Leong Hin Chua,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company



/s/ Leong Hin Chua
-------------------------------------
President, Chief Executive Officer
August 6, 2010
# C_2021182EN.01001501.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Firma Z v Finanzamt Y

(Case C-802/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90(1) - Reduction of the taxable amount - Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400) - Supplies of medicinal products - Granting of discounts - Hypothetical nature of the question referred - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2021/C 182/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Firma Z

Defendant: Finanzamt Y

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a pharmacy established in one Member State may not reduce its taxable amount where it carries out intra-Community supplies of pharmaceutical products, those supplies being exempt from value added tax in that Member State, to a statutory health insurance fund established in another Member State and it grants a discount to those persons covered by that insurance.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
# C_2009180EN.01002302.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-546/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/60/EC - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 180/39

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and M. Sundén, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45(1) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.

1

---
#### Onishi v. State

18740

5/23/97

Affirmed in part, Vacated and Remanded
#### International Forge Co. *v.*Paul S. Reeves & Co., Inc., Appellant.

*Practice, Supreme Court*— Appeals—Assignments *of error*— Mo*tion for judgment n. o. v.*— Withdrawal *of motion*— New *trial*— Ver*dict excessive.*

1. The withdrawal of an assignment of error to the refusal of a motion for judgment n. o. v. is an admission that the case is for the jury.

2. The appellate court will not reverse a judgment on a verdict because the trial court refused a new trial, where no error is assigned to the admission or rejection of testimony, or to the charge of the court, and the only reasons assigned for a new trial in the court below were that the verdict was against the law, the evidence, the weight of the evidence, the charge of the court, and was excessive.

Argued March 25,1919.

Appeal, No. 261, Jan. T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1917, No. 2525, on verdict for plaintiff in case of International Forge Co., Inc., v. Paul S. Reeves & Co., Inc.

Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit to recover the value of certain lost metal. Before McMichael, P. J.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,146.35. Defendant appealed.

*432*Errors assigned*were as follows:

1. The learned trial judge erred in refusing to make absolute defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

2. The learned trial judge erred in dismissing clefendant’s motion for new trial.

*Leo*MacFarland, for appellant.

*William H. Peace,*for appellee.

April 21, 1919:

Per Curiam,

The appellant entered into a written contract with the appellee to manufacture castings for it out of materials to be furnished by it. The contract provided that the appellant should “stand all metal losses,” and this action was brought to recover the value of lost metals furnished to it. On this appeal from the judgment on the verdict in favor of the plaintiff there were originally two assignments of error, the first to the refusal of the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, and > the second to the dismissal of the rule for a new trial. The first was withdrawn, and its withdrawal was an admission that the case was for the jury. The reasons assigned in the court below in asking for a new trial were: “1. The verdict was against the law. 2. The verdict was against the evidence. 3. The verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 4. The verdict was against the charge of the court. 5. The verdict was excessive.” No complaint was made below, and none is made here, of the admission or rejection of testimony or of the charge of the court, and there is, therefore, no reason why the case should go to a second jury.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10Q 
DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000880458
<NAME> RETIX
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                           6,792
<SECURITIES>                                    10,796
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,167<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,109<F2>
<PP&E>                                           2,586<F3>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,515
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           226
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,208<F4>
<SALES>                                         23,968
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,968
<CGS>                                            7,832
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,594<F5>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (674)<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,952)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,952)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,952)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
<FN>
<F1>IS NET OF ALLOWANCES OF $1,333
<F2>INCLUDES PREPAID AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS OF $2,104
<F3>IS NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
<F4>INCLUDES $4,174 IN LONG TERM OBLIGATIONS
<F5>INCLUDES $19,762 IN OPERATING EXPENSES
<F6>INCLUDES INTEREST INCOME, NET
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019054EN.01000501.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureș (Romania) lodged on 7 November 2018 — BRD Groupe Societé Générale SA v KC

(Case C-699/18)

(2019/C 54/07)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Mureș

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BRD Groupe Societé Générale SA

Defendant: KC

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular the 12th, 21st and 23rd recitals and Articles 2(b), 6(1), 7(2) and 8 thereof, permit, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy and the principle of equivalence and effectiveness, a set of means of legal recourse that consists in an ordinary legal action, not subject to any limitation period, to establish the unfairness of certain terms in a consumer contract and an ordinary legal action of a personal and pecuniary nature that is subject to a limitation period, which is used in pursuit of the directive’s aim of eliminating the effects of all obligations arising and performed under clauses which are found to be unfair to consumers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular the 12th, 21st and 23rd recitals and Articles 2(b), 6(1), 7(2) and 8 thereof, permit, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy and the principle of equivalence and effectiveness, a set of means of legal recourse that consists in an ordinary legal action, not subject to any limitation period, to establish the unfairness of certain terms in a consumer contract and an ordinary legal action of a personal and pecuniary nature that is subject to a limitation period, which is used in pursuit of the directive’s aim of eliminating the effects of all obligations arising and performed under clauses which are found to be unfair to consumers?

| 2. | In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, do those same provisions preclude an interpretation, derived from application of the principle of the certainty of civil-law legal relationships, according to which the objective point in time by which the consumer must have known or should have known of the existence of the unfair terms is the time at which the loan agreement with that consumer came to an end? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, do those same provisions preclude an interpretation, derived from application of the principle of the certainty of civil-law legal relationships, according to which the objective point in time by which the consumer must have known or should have known of the existence of the unfair terms is the time at which the loan agreement with that consumer came to an end?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---
# C_2010100EN.01000701.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Germany) — Müller Fleisch GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-562/08) (1)

1

(System for monitoring bovine spongiform encephalopathy - Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 - Bovine animals over 30 months of age - Slaughter under normal conditions - Meat intended for human consumption - Mandatory screening test - National rules - Obligation to screen - Extension - Bovine animals over 24 months of age)

2010/C 100/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Müller Fleisch GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of, in conjunction with Annex III, Chapter A, Part I to, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 147, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1248/2001 of 22 June 2001 (OJ 2001 L 173, p. 12) — Requirement to screen for BSE all bovine animals over 30 months of age subject to normal slaughter for human consumption — National legislation extending the obligation to screen to all bovine animals over 24 months of age

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and Annex III, Chapter A, Part I to that regulation, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1248/2001 of 22 June 2001, do not preclude national rules under which all bovine animals over 24 months of age must be screened for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

1

---
STEAM ELECTRIC

DUMMY REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE04575A1
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 PRAYER

  The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, offered the following 
prayer:
  We give You thanks, O God, for giving us another day.
  As we begin the 15th year since that terrible day, we ask Your 
blessing once again upon the families of Officer Jacob Chestnut and 
Detective John Gibson. We ask as well Your protection for the entire 
Capitol Police corps, who mourn the loss of their brothers in uniform. 
Thank You for calling them all to their lives of service.
  Please hear our prayers for the Members of this assembly upon whom 
the authority of government is given. Help them to understand the 
tremendous responsibility they have to represent both their 
constituencies and the people of this great Nation of ours. This is a 
great but complex task. Grant them as well the gift of wisdom to sort 
through what competing interests might exist to work a solution that 
can best serve all of the American people.
  Finally, give each Member peace and equanimity. And give all 
Americans generosity of heart to understand that governance is not 
simple, but difficult work, at times requiring sacrifice and 
forbearance.
  May all that is done within the people's House this day be for Your 
greater honor and glory.
  Amen.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 10.9


 


Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy


 


(Effective January 6, 2017)


 


 





	Annual Cash Retainer:	$75,000 ($125,000 for Non-Executive Chairman)
	 	 
	Meeting Attendance Fees:	Upon a Committee of the Board of Directors or the Board of Directors meeting more than ten times in one calendar year, the Board of Directors may, in its discretion, award an additional $1,000 per Committee meeting after the initial ten meetings and $1,500 per Board of Directors meeting after the initial ten meetings, as applicable
	 	 
	Committee Annual Cash Fees (Chair):	Audit: $25,000
	 	Compensation: $25,000
	 	Governance: $10,000
	 	 
	Committee Annual Cash Fees (Non-Chair):	Audit: $12,500 
	 	Compensation: $12,500
	 	Governance: $5,000
	 	 
	Annual
    Restricted Stock Unit Award:	$130,000 of
    restricted stock units ($175,000 for Non-Executive Chairman) 
	 	one-half vests immediately; one-half vests in one year from the date of grant
	 	 
	Initial
    Restricted Stock Unit Award:	$200,000 of restricted stock units ($300,000 for Non-Executive Chairman)
	 	Vests one-third on each December 31 following the date of grant or upon a change of control
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0595 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRETT BUCKY MATKOVICH ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 4 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 28 2021

06/28/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0595
### Section 

### 9

Certificationthat Public Hearing was held after Proper Public Notice See Attachments : 

# + Arizona Republic Notices (Sections 7&8) 

# + GRIN Public Notices (Section 7&8) 

# + List ofAttendees 

# + Transcripts ofHearings 

# + Comments and Responses (Section 10)